> On Sep 10, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 10, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Carl Moberg (camoberg) <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Now, think about configuration parameters that have applied configuration 
>> located in more than one place. Let’s say you change the IP address of an 
>> interface, it is likely that this configuration will be passed around as 
>> input to a handful of subsystems (e.g. the DHCP server, some routing daemons 
>> that may bind to specific IP addresses). Is the intended and applied in sync 
>> when a specific subset of those configurations are updated. What happens if 
>> there’s a partial failure?
> 
> This is a good example. Another example, and somebody on the call today 
> started to ask this but got cut off, relates to interfaces on the device.
> 
> Interfaces already exist on a system. As such they have a configuration 
> (default values) that exists on them. They are enabled when configuration 
> gets applied on them. They will have applied configuration but no intended 
> configuration. Should this be reported?
> 
> Yet another example is of a BFD session that gets bootstrapped because of a 
> ping. There is no intended configuration, but the session exists and a query 
> of configuration in this case would return a valid BFD session.
> 
> Could we get some clarification (with examples, preferably) on what the 
> expectation is from a openconfig opstate perspective?

Section 7 of draft-openconfig-netmod-opstate talks about that. Specifically, #3 
talks about the interface question you raise..
Also, Rob mentioned on the call that, this is no different than BGP specific 
config/state (draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model).

-sam
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to